Training to Failure, or Just Training to Fail?

What you’re getting yourself into

Key Points

1. When comparing a WIDE array of training variables (number of reps, rest periods, rep speed, and loading), muscle growth is the same if sets are taken to failure.

2. Training to failure is likely safe. Or, at the very least, there’s no direct evidence that it’s particularly dangerous.

3. Training to complete failure likely isn’t necessary to maximize growth – you can likely leave a couple reps in the tank. Unfortunately, people aren’t very good at knowing how close to failure they actually are. Taking a set to failure “idiot-proofs” it to make sure you maximized the stimulus.

4. The bottom line is that training to failure helps make sure you’re actually working hard enough for your muscles to grow, as far as we can tell it’s safe, but it’s neither necessary nor a magic bullet.

Note from Greg: Dan Ogborn’s isn’t a name too many people are familiar with, and that’s a crying shame. He has a PhD in Medical Sciences specializing in the molecular effects of strength training in muscle, he’s worked as a post-doctoral fellow in muscle physiology, and he’s finishing up his course work to become a physical therapist. Consequently, it’s not too surprising that he hasn’t had the time to write a ton and work on growing an audience, so he’s been flying under the radar. I’m really honored that he found the time in his schedule to write this article for Strengtheory. I’ve been a fan of Dan’s work since 2012, and this article is exactly what I’ve come to expect from him – well-researched but still very relatable and applicable.

A new perspective on training to failure for muscle hypertrophy

Failure: the proverbial “F” word of the training industry. Failure is heralded as the ticket to slabs of muscle by some, and to others, the unmanageable training stimulus sure to end in injury. We’re in the midst of the hypertrophy renaissance period, in which the strictly defined hypertrophy training parameters of days past are no more. It’s probably worth looking at the role that failure played in shaping these studies, and more importantly, revisiting the concept as a component of a hypertrophy training program.

Training to failure across the hypertrophy literature

Many in the training community have abandoned the practice of training to failure, while others still embrace it. It’s far from a forgotten concept, as many recent training studies used failure as a means to equate experimental conditions (1-3).

Much of the work demonstrating the comparable growth that occurs with both low and high-load training used failure as an endpoint (1,2,4), findings that we’ve recently replicated in trained individuals (3). We can’t be certain that concentric failure is entirely responsible for the observed response; however, comparisons of low-intensity training (30%-1RM) matched to high-intensity training (90%-1RM) to failure have shown a complete lack of an acute protein synthetic response for low-intensity training. When the low-intensity condition was taken to concentric failure, a comparable acute protein synthetic response was observed (5). The acute protein synthetic response may not predict the chronic adaptations to training (6), yet it’s still interesting that low-intensity training short of failure (work-matched to high-intensity training to failure) doesn’t seem to stimulate an acute protein synthetic response.

For tempo, my recent meta-analyses with Brad Schoenfeld and James Kreiger demonstrated that repetition durations between 0.5-10 seconds have comparable growth when considering only studies using concentric failure (7).

A comparable analysis doesn’t exist for rest intervals; however, a closer look at Menno Henselman’s and Brad Schoenfeld’s recent review yields similar findings (8). While lacking quantitative analysis, they came to a similar conclusion regarding the various rest intervals that can be used to promote growth. They didn’t group studies based on the use of failure as an end-point, but much of their narrative analyses on long-term hypertrophy was formulated from five studies (4, 9-12). Of those, the use of failure was either clearly indicated (4, 9), mentioned in the discussion (10), or wasn’t clearly stated at all (repetition maximum ranges) (11, 12). In all five of those cases, rest intervals from 1-5 minutes did not have a profound effect on the hypertrophic response to training (4, 9, 10), with the exception of Souza-Junior et al (12) favoring decreased rest intervals.

While existing evidence (1-4, 7-11) indicates a wide array of parameters that we can use in our training programs to promote growth when training to concentric failure, it doesn’t validate the assertion that training to failure is required, or enhances growth over other training conditions.

Failure means flexibility, but what about results?

Despite the fact that training to failure has been a prominent and unsettled debate in the training industry for decades, there’s remarkably few direct comparisons to determine its relevance to training adaptations (13, 14). What’s surprising is that there is a particular lack of literature on hypertrophy, and most of what exists focuses on strength (15-18). As far as hypertrophy is concerned, much is focused on fluctuations in hormone levels (18-21), used as a proxy for growth down the road. Given that recent work demonstrates that acute fluctuations in certain hormones don’t actually correlate with the long-term growth response, using arguments on hormonal fluctuations that occur when training to failure may not be a sound idea (22, 23).

Recent evidence suggests that failure may not be necessary as far as hypertrophy is concerned (14). Sampson et al (14) blocked-randomized 28 males following a four-week training familiarization period (50-80% 1RM, 2:2) to one of three conditions: 1) rapid shortening (RS), 2) stretch shortening cycle (SSC), and 3) controls. All groups trained unilateral elbow flexion at 85%-1RM for four sets with three minutes rest between sets. The control group completed a tempo of 2:2, the RS accelerated the weight maximally during flexion and two-second eccentric, and the SSC group completed maximal speed flexion and extension. Only the control group completed repetitions to failure (6 repetitions per set), whereas the RS and SSC groups completed four repetitions per set.

Following 12 weeks of training, the control group (who trained to failure) ended up completing more repetitions per set, training volume, time under tension, and rated higher levels of exertion than those in the RS and SSC groups. Despite this, actual adaptations between the groups were comparable. One-repetition maximum strength increased 30.5%, along with isometric maximal voluntary contraction of the elbow flexors (13.3%) over the 12 weeks, with no differences between the groups. Similarly, alterations in elbow flexor cross-sectional area were not different between groups. To make a long story short, training to failure meant completing more work for a comparable amount of growth.

The fact that failure wasn’t entirely necessary for hypertrophy isn’t surprising in the context of previous data. Much of the “magic” of training to failure across various training parameters is that it can alter motor unit recruitment, and this is best understood when comparing training intensities (24). The force demands of high versus low load intensity require, for a similar muscle, differing numbers of motor units. Under high load conditions, greater numbers of motor units will be needed as compared to training with light loads at the start of a set. When training to failure, low-load training is associated with longer sets, greater time under tension, and mechanical work completed (5). Throughout this, as fatigue sets in, some motor units keep working, others drop in and out, and others may reduce their force output over time (25). Motor units that may not have been necessary based on the initial load during low-load training will be progressively recruited as other motor units drop out or reduce their force output. While both conditions start with differing motor unit requirements, over the course of a set to failure, comparable motor unit numbers and types may end up being recruited regardless of training parameters (i.e.: intensity).

It would be premature to suggest that concentric failure is required to “equate” motor unit demands across varying training parameters. While EMG data isn’t necessarily directly reflective of motor unit recruitment, Sundstrup et al (26) demonstrated that normalized EMG signals plateaued approximately 3-5 repetitions before the onset of concentric failure. This indicates that training to failure may not be necessary to “equate” motor unit activity across training conditions. Let’s not forget that motor unit recruitment isn’t a passive process either (27-29), set by load and/or fatigue. They’re your motor units, you chose to use them (27).

This isn’t an open and shut case. Giessing et al (13) had participants train twice a week for 10 weeks in one of three, single-set conditions: 1) training to their self-determined repetition maximum (short of failure), 2) training to concentric failure, and 3) training performing repetitions to self-determined repetition maximum using the rest pause technique. Following training, the group that trained to failure demonstrated larger effects for various body composition changes (moderate to large effects) as compared to the rest pause group (small to moderate effects). Those who trained to their self-predicted repetition maximum failed to increase muscle mass. These suggest that we may not be that great at identifying where our true repetition maximum is, and that training to failure and using rest-pause techniques may be important for the adaptations to strength training to ensure we’re actually pushing as hard as we think we are.

So while it seemed that training to failure equates growth across many training parameters (1, 3, 7, 8, 30), the results of Sampson et al (14) suggest that comparable training adaptations can be achieved with less work training short of failure, and Giessing et al (13), just the opposite. As it stands, the evidence suggests that training to failure makes program design easier, but completing that program may be harder than necessary.

The molecular argument against training to failure

Others have suggested that the fatiguing nature of training to failure could impair growth. During fatiguing contractions, an increase in adenosine monophosphate (AMP) occurs as a consequence of increased flux through adenylate kinase, ultimately working to, at least partially, restore ATP concentrations. Gorostiaga et al (31) demonstrated that ATP:AMP ratio was reduced to a greater extent when participants completed 5 sets of 10 repetitions of leg press to failure as opposed to 10 sets of 5 repetitions (non-failure condition). Changes in the ratio of AMP:ATP can activate AMPK kinase (AMPK)(32), which has been shown to act as an inhibitor of a key signaling protein involved in protein synthesis known as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (33,34).

While this certainly seems like sound reasoning, I suspect we’ve put the cart before the horse. It’s tempting to associate certain signaling proteins with one training condition or another, and AMPK has been associated with endurance exercise (35), playing a key role in the mitochondrial adaptations required to support the prolonged, repetitive demands of endurance exercise {Hardie:2011fx}. In reality, proteins like AMPK are sensitive to fluctuations in metabolites within the cell, and alterations in the ratio of ATP:AMP can occur irrespective of mode of exercise (36, 37).

Dreyer et al (36) demonstrated that protein synthesis is impaired during a strength training session along with a corresponding increase in AMPK. Inhibiting the metabolically expensive protein synthetic response within cells undergoing the metabolic demands of exercise makes sense. But an AMPK response has also been observed outside of the training session. Others have shown an immediate post-exercise AMPK response when sets were taken to concentric failure (37), and activation of p70s6k still occurred, often used as a proxy of subsequent protein synthesis.

Recent work has also shown that activation of AMPK in a concurrent training program had no detrimental effect on mTOR signaling in recovery from a strength training session (38). Coupled with the fact that we’ve already reviewed the existing literature on our outcome of interest that also fails to demonstrate any detriment despite the greater change in the ratio of ATP:AMP when training to failure suggests that we shouldn’t put more weight on the molecular argument over what we know at the “functional,” or hypertrophic level.

I love studying signaling proteins as much as the next guy, but if we have data on the actual primary outcome of interest, in this case hypertrophy, this trumps any arguments constructed on the highly complicated interactions of signaling proteins alone.

More options, not more growth

While it’s entirely plausible that training to failure isn’t necessary for growth (14), it does afford us greater flexibility in the training parameters we can use for hypertrophy training.

But that increased flexibility may come at price. Many critics often cite increased injury risk and the potential for overtraining (19, 39), but these are merely theoretical arguments, with no hard data to support them. Stone et al (39) have suggested risks to consistently training to failure include overtraining syndrome, and that repetitive micro traumas may result in overuse injuries. Nimmons et al (40) has been cited to support impaired adaptations in strength and power (39), but their data, while lacking the precision measurements used in modern studies, shows no disadvantage from a hypertrophic perspective. Others suggest that blunted hormonal responses will compromise subsequent adaptations to training (18,41), but reliance on acute hormonal fluctuations to anticipate changes in muscle size isn’t a strong argument (22,23). Such arguments fall short by over-emphasizing the role of failure in training without consideration of the role, and proper programming of other training parameters. Is there really no combination of training parameters (frequency, intensity, etc…) that can be created to use failure successfully in a training program?

If anything, the frequent use of concentric failure in research studies is evidence of feasibility (1-4,7,8,13,14), although adverse event and adherence reporting in many of these trials leaves much to be desired.

In the end, training to failure may increase the program design options you have that can promote growth, but may result in the completion of more work than is necessary for a given training adaptation (14). In my opinion, given the purely theoretical basis for injury risk, and the documented, successful use of this training method in much of the literature, it is possible to safely integrate failure into your hypertrophy program, but don’t expect more gains than you trained for.

Take-Home Points

There are relatively few direct comparisons on the effects of training to failure on muscle growth. Data regarding the superiority of training to failure is mixed, with some studies showing increased benefit, while others show equivalence to training short of failure.

Arguments against training to failure center on the potential for elevated risk of injury, altered hormonal responses to training, and the creation of a metabolic environment inhibitory to growth. These arguments are largely theoretical in nature lacking objective data on the outcomes of interest.

The use of concentric failure in a training program may not enhance the rate of growth consequent to training, but it does provide greater flexibility in the combinations of training parameters that produce growth.

Addendum August 2017

A recent study by Martorelli et. al further investigated the effects of training to failure on hypertrophy and strength.

Over 10 weeks, 89 untrained young women did biceps curls using one of three programs:

3 sets to failure with 70% of 1RM

4 sets stopping shy of failure with 70% of 1RM, with volume matched to that of the failure group (4 sets of 7 reps)

3 sets of 7 reps with 70% of 1RM

All three groups experienced very similar increases in strength (which should be expected, since relative loading was matched), but the group training to failure experienced the most hypertrophy – a 17.5% increase in biceps thickness, vs. an 8.5% increase in the volume-matched group, and only a 2.1% increase in the group doing 3 sets of 7 reps.

We’re not even entirely sure there was a significant difference between groups. The stats in this paper were weird, and didn’t report whether or not there were between-group differences for some key measures.

Method of load progression wasn’t specified, though it seems load only increased after retesting 1RMs on week 5. If that’s the case, the group training to failure was training hard every week, whereas weeks 2-5 and 7-10 would have gotten progressively easier for the two non-failure groups as their strength increased (i.e. their sets may have only been 2 reps shy of failure on weeks 1 and 6, but 4-5 reps from failure on weeks 5 and 10).

It’s also worth nothing that this finding contrasts with that of Sampson and colleagues (14).

With all of that in mind, this study adds another piece to the puzzle, and muddies the waters a bit. It’s still clear that training to failure isn’t necessary for hypertrophy, but this study provides some evidence that training to failure may help increase the rate of hypertrophy (though again, that’s not a unanimous finding).

Addendum November 2017

A recent study (reviewed in more depth in MASS) was the first to test the impact of training to failure on recovery. It included three groups. One group did three sets of squats and bench to failure, one group did three sets of squats and bench halfway to failure (determined by bar velocity), and one group did six sets of squats and bench halfway to failure. With this design, the first and third groups performed the same training volume, but only the first group took their sets to failure.

The group training to failure had larger, longer-lasting decrements in performance (bar speed with various loads) than the groups not training to failure, including the group with matched volume.

This is a snippet of a larger graphic from the November 2017 issue of MASS. Dotted line is training to failure, dashed line is volume-matched non-failure, and solid line is half-volume non-failure.

Now, a drawback of this study is that the non-failure groups stayed a long way from failure. The story may be different if the non-failure groups trained at something closer to an 8-9RPE. However, it does provide us with evidence that training to failure may cause a disproportionate amount of fatigue, which could negatively impact training frequency.

Spread the love

Related

About Dan Ogborn

Dan Ogborn PhD, CSCS has worked in all facets of the fitness industry, most recently as a muscle physiologist working to determine the optimal combination of training parameters to maximize muscle growth. He is currently a physiotherapy resident accepting new patients at Total Rehabilitation and Sports Injuries Clinic in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Purely anecdotal, but in my experience it seems as if taking sets to failure fatigues me to the point that it isn’t possible to reach an equal volume per workout that I can achieve by not going to failure. Another anecdotal observation is that training to failure often creates longer recovery times for me post-workout, meaning that it reduces the numer of workouts I can perform in a week. Any thoughts on these ideas?

Well the obvious answer is that the accumulation of fatigue should limit work output as compared to less fatiguing conditions.

The tough question is, what changes do you need to make to your program to accommodate training to failure. What advantages could you gain? Do you need to complete the volume that you have been completing training short of failure if you train to failure? In the case of Sampson et al, it may actually be the other way around.

That was really the point of the article, that you can’t necessarily expect enhanced outcomes (growth), but you have a safety net that allows you to use various combinations of training parameters while expecting a comparable result.

It’s frequently been my experience that training to failure is a decent “workaround” for when I’m away from my regular gym. I travel a lot so sometimes the hotel cable machines or the local Y is all that’s available. In the absence of a squat rack it’s better to front squat a lighter, cleanable, weight than to not squat at all.

Anecdotally, I think that incorporating some training to failure improves conditioning and work capacity generally, even if it isn’t optimal from a recovery standpoint.

Sorry for so many repeated concepts with my comments on all your last articles. I just think they all are so intertwined with one another. I also apologize for such a long comment. I just honestly love this blog and forum you have put together!

So I think it’s interesting. Clearly as posted in the previous article about sets, volume is not weight X reps. That the research is showing a shift more towards what James Steele has been preaching that it’s more of the effort of each set rather than the load itself.
Just like Dan Ogborn says that all these other variables, such as rest periods, tempo and reps simply vanish when the sets are taken to failure. As for safety, I think he brings up such a valid point that there not exactly any less safe than any other mode of training, now maybe if you have a breakdown in form, but you could easily get that or a overuse injury of not going to failure but doing a million reps/sets.
I’ve mentioned this before and I think that it’s really is fascinating, if rests do matter, then there is no difference between a 15 second rest, 30 second, or 60 second rest. Sure you will do less reps per set but if you’re reaching failure then it doesn’t actually matter.
In light of this it would appear that dropsets and rest pause really would be superior. If you did rest pause you could knockout 6-8 “sets” rather quickly. Or if you do let say 3 triple dropsets that’s a total of 9 sets.

I also know Dan Ogborn wrote an article on dropset science which I really enjoyed mentionionng the added of dropsets pertaining to a safeguard of fatiguing both your type1 and 2 fibers.

The thing that would make dropsets so nice is that you get the added benefit of increasing metabolic stress, muscle activation, and you get to take advantage of lighter loads sparing your joints, You’re also theoretically getting in the same amount of sets but with less overall reps which would without a doubt help ward off overuse injuries not to mention I couldn’t see how going to failure on a 30%RM could lead to a muscle tear or any other type of injury.
My biggest concern would be the neuromuscular fatigue and just overall stress of going to failure. But my gut and background in psychology would lead me to believe that doing a quick burst of a few hard dropsets that would equate to Set 1 (10,5,5) Set 2 (10,5,5) Set 3 (10,5,5) would be easier on both the mind and body versus doing 9 sets of 10. Not only are you doing 1/3 less reps, but you will also spend a fraction of the time spent in the gym. You’re essentially cutting out the middle man i.e. the beginning reps of a set.

It honestly seems too good to be true and almost a gimmick from the millions of exercise programs on TV which why I hesitate.

Just my two cents! I would love to hear both Dan’s and Greg’s thoughts! 🙂

I think a lot of peoples’ reservations about going to failure stem from only going to failure on rare occasions. When they do so, it causes more fatigue than normal, and they think, “wow, this really cuts into recovery. I shouldn’t do this too often.”

However, the fatigue difference in terms of taking a set to failure vs. keeping a set a few reps away from failure surely isn’t as large as the fatigue you feel when you first start lifting. If the body can adapt to the latter, I doubt it’ll have much issue adapting to the former.

Regarding drop sets, I don’t know that the support is so clear. i.e. it’s not clear whether the effectiveness of a set behaves more like a switch (effective/ineffective) or like a sliding scale (more effective or less effective, on a continuum). My inclination is that it’s the latter. If it were the former, then obviously drop sets wouldn’t serve much purpose if “just” taking a set within a couple reps of failure is effective. If it’s the latter, the second question is whether there’s an upper limit in the effect you can get from a single set. If so, where does that limit lie? If it lies at or near the point of failure, then it would also seem like drop sets wouldn’t do too much to help you (if you got all the effect you would have before the drops). If not, then going to and past failure (drop sets, extended sets, cluster sets, going to eccentric instead of concentric failure, etc.) would be the bees knees for hypertrophy.

I think it’s an interesting point you bring up. I think what constitutes a “set” is important to define. Again, research has shown that 30-90 seconds makes no true impact on hypertrophy gains. So is doing a drop set or a rest pause set really considered “one set” It is in the traditional sense obviously, but I’m not so sure. I question whether or not your body needs to shut down in a sense between sets, fully recover, then execute another set. But I would think that the research we have would dictate that you don’t. So in my honest opinion these extended set protocols can be seen as multiple sets. Essentially what Borge’s Myo reps but looked at slightly different. I recall one study showing a 95%RM inferior to a lower %RM when taken to failure. On the surface, and again, I can’t decipher the mechanisms and research as well as you but it would appear that as long as you rest long enough or lower the load so you can at least complete 5 more reps to failure it should be considered another set, whether that be by rest pause or drop sets.

That being said, you ask a question to which I do no necessarily have an answer. Could a single, multi-level drop set replace multiple sets? A good question but not one that I’m aware of any data to support.

It would certainly be more time efficient, but we’d need more research to really test whether the fatigue of the dropset confers an advantage such that comparable growth could occur with less volume, which I would anticipate given the lack of rest.

Thank you so much for the reply Dan. I really would love to see a study of something to the extent of 3 sets to failure vs 1 set with two drops and see how the hypertrophy compares. In my mind, it should be comparable given that we know rest periods don’t play much of a factor. But I would be pretty mad at myself if I thought I was doing multiple sets and in reality was only doing one painful set. But I still strongly believe what we know about training to failure and about low loads that the muscle growth would be comparable.

On a side note, Bret Contreras, someone I highly respect as well recently came out and said progressive strength training should be prioritized and is the most efficient route to aesthetic goals. Which confuses me in light of all the current research coming out.

Yes it does seem an overly complicated design given the conclusions of the paper. Keep in mind that Brad Schoenfeld and I have previously investigated the relationship of tempo and hypertrophy in sets to concentric failure here:

My perspective is that we’re really just altering motor unit recruitment across these techniques – high load or fast concentric tempos are the result of attempting to maximize voluntary activation of the motor unit pool; prolonged TUT with low intensity loads to failure is maximizing motor unit recruitment through fatigue.

If your objective is to maximize strength, I’d lean more towards emphasizing load and contraction velocity/tempo, if your goal is hypertrophy, you can probably get it done with any of the techniques.

I haven’t listened to that podcast so I won’t comment on whether he is “wrong” or not. That being said, the data from the Sampson et al (2015) do conflict with the idea that it “cuts” into recovery, and therefore hinder the adaptation.

Sampson et al (2015) demonstrated that the failure group had higher RPE and performed additional, possibly unnecessary volume for a comparable adaptation. It did not demonstrate that failure reduced the hypertrophic adaptations to training, which would be expected if the argument you mentioned held true.

That being said, it will ultimately come down to overall program design, so to suggest that failure alone is responsible for maladpatation to training would be overly simplistic.

I’ve come to a similar conclusion lately- I used to be a hardcore HIT guy, but now I use failure a bit more sparingly. My experience has been that it causes me to make rapid gains, then plateau faster than I otherwise would, but doesn’t seem to increase my risk of injury. I think it was great as a newbie exactly because it idiot-proofs the workout, but as an experienced lifter it becomes more possible to err on the side of pushing yourself too far.

Also, it looks like we both picked the same stock photo- ‘mirin that lego aesthetic, brah.

This was one aspect of training I was always curious about. I have seen the best results when I would use plus sets. so if I were doing for example 5 sets of 3 with 85% of my max, going to failure on the last set. I felt it was the best of both worlds of getting in volume and also making sure I got all I possibly could get out of that weight.
The issue I would have with that was, how would I know if that was enough volume to give me the stimulus I needed to progress. so my question is, what is a way to achieve the fatigue if failure and making sure you got the volume necessary? I read that, take a parameter like sets of 4 with 80% max and keep doing sets until you can no longer get the 4 reps. That is when you know you have truly exhausted the muscle and you have achieved failure. obviously there are issues with that if one doesn’t know the best parameters. of course doing 2 rep sets with 80%1rm, you could do 20+ sets probably. But you get my drift. Thoughts on training that way?

I *think* you’re overthinking it a little bit. I just use a simple decision tree.

If you’re making progress you’re doing something right.

If you’re not making progress but you feel pretty fresh most of the time, you probably need to increase the volume.

If you’re not making progress and you’re feeling beaten up and worn down…

If you’re sleeping 8-9 hours per night, every night, your diet is dialed in, and your stress is low (or, at the very least, those factors are optimized to the greatest extent they can be), then you probably need to pull back on volume a bit.

If you’re not taking care of one of those recovery-related things, fix that first and see if progress picks back up. If it doesn’t, then you probably need to pull back.

Training to failure and achieving Time under tension are both very important but must be used with care.

In my opinion this research: Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men Published online before print April 19, 2012, doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00307.2012 Journal of Applied Physiology April 19, 2012 jap.00307.2012

— has the flaw that they only used “untrained” men. But then again the one’s who brought heavier weights to failure experienced strength gains as well and that might be because the others just ‘weren’t training to hard because of underestimating their limits and naturally not knowing just when to stop “just short” of failure.

But I agree that advanced lifters who pretty much know when they will “almost” fail a rep will benefit from stopping short of it. In the strength gain arena it is pretty much defined that it is not necessary (and may even be detrimental to gains) to reach failure all the time, but then these advanced lifters can benefit of just reaching short of failure since they will be able to fully control and asses that they are working hard enough, And since they are already training with heavy poundage then that may even serve as sufficient stimulus and more care needs to be taken since heavier weights can more easily result to over training while beginners who will fail at lighter weights on their 8th rep will almost not experience over training.

But if you would employ a time under tension program and exaggerate the negative part of the reps, it is indeed VERY hard NOT to reach concentric failure.

And it doesn’t help us that studying muscle growth is more difficult and would require more invasive procedures as compared to simply studying strength gain over time.

There should be conducted a long research where control will be given a program wherein they will not train to failure, the other group will train to failure and the others will train “just short” of failure. And after a year their gains should be measured.

However the differences between each person might be a limitation and also their lifestyle. And this will need one to follow at least THOUSANDS if not several hundreds of different subjects whose day to day actions might be hard to control and thus might skew the results.

While I agree that untrained participants were used in Mitchell et al 2012, the physiological theory that we believe is responsible for their observed results of the indifference of training intensity on hypertrophy would likely hold true in trained participants. In fact, Brad Schoenfeld and I have done that study, and found comparable results.

I’m not convinced the study you propose is necessary given that while there are not many direct comparisons of training to failure on growth, the few we have, coupled with the 100s of trials that use failure as an end-point can be used to formulate useful practice guidelines.

Not much to add to what Greg already said. I just want to comment as briefly as I can(because my english is what it is) on autoregulating fatigue on a training session. I used to do that “do sets of x until you can’t do them at a spefic RPE anymore” -type of training for a few months. I would do sets of 5, for example, and do them until I hit RPE 9(one rep shy of failure). The rest periods were pretty much the same for every training session(otherwise you could do that type of training for hours if you wanted to). On good days the number of sets could be pretty high, and on bad days of course much lower. I also tried to add a very small amount of weight(about 0,5-1 kg/1-2 lbs) for each training session. So the number of sets would be auto-regulated, but there was at least very incremental planned progress on the weights. What I found was that although the volume would go up and down, depending on how good or bad the day in question was, over time – especially as the weights on the sets(same for every set on a training session, no pyramids, drop sets etc.) would slowly get closer to failure – the volume would plateau on a specific level. I did DUP type of training for both bench press and weighted chin ups, with sets of 5 on one training day and sets of 3 on the other, and eventually the volume “auto-regulated” pretty much on the same level on both training days. The reason was simple: there was no planned progression on the volume, only on the intensity(and even that was VERY incremental to make much of a difference and obviously not enough to override the decreasing volume from fewer sets). And because the trend of decreasing volume started pretty much from the beginning of the program(the weights were very “manageable” – at least until the very end), a deload a little sooner would probably only have been a “band aid”, not a solution.

Now I’m doing pretty much the exact opposite: there’s a planned and gradual increase on the volume by slowly adding reps and sets. I’m trying to keep the weights at least on the same level; on bad days I do less reps on set(s) and perhaps more of them with a little shorter rest periods to get the volume in for that day. On good days it’s either more “full length sets” or as many reps as possible on the last set(if 3 or more reps over the full length set, a small increase on the weights for the next training session). Bigger increases on the weights are attempted only after a certain number of sets in one training session is possible and a deload/peak is done. Hopefully that made any sense. I’m not a writer even in my own language and just a “hobbyist” when it comes to lifting weights – with the focus on weighted chins, so there’s also that. Too long, hope you didn’t sleep 😀

Great article. While i realize that getting to failure (or close to it) is
an effective stim for growth it’s TERRIBLE for strength at least
in the long run. Soviet literature in Olympic lifting concerns itself with
a “minimalist” approach and concedes that most sets should be taken
to between 1/3 and 2/3 the maximum number of repetitions. Now strength
training (or in the case of Oly lifting explosive strength) is not hypertrophy
nevertheless the CNS is the governor. You burn the CNS out and your done
at least for awhile.

So, in the Sampson et al study, “the control group (who trained to failure) ended up completing more repetitions per set, training volume, time under tension, ” And DIDNT show any more growth than the other two conditions. Well, then this study has a problem.
The study design anyway is not adequate to study the difference between training to failure vs non failure, bc it introduced two variables at once (training to failure and movement execution).

That’s a really good question. To some degree, it’s impossible to go to true failure, especially in higher rep ranges (i.e. if you went until you were 100% sure you couldn’t do another rep, and then your muscles were maximally stimulated with electrodes, you COULD still do a few more). However, I’m not sure how much that really matters. At a basic level, the stimulus comes from eliciting a certain degree of fatigue in the muscle. With something like 30% 1rm, if you went to true failure when you were incapable of exerting force equal to 30% of your 1rm, then your muscles may be fatigue 71%, whereas if you stopped 3 reps shy of failure, they may have been fatigued 67% – do those few little percents really make that much of a difference? I don’t see a good reason why they should, personally.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the recent study from Stuart Philips on training to failure. The researchers found that when all sets were taken to failure, not only was hypertrophy equivocal between high and low load groups, but strength gains were also (except for the bench press, where the high load group improved more). It says that the subjects had 2 years of resistance training, but one would have to wonder just how consistent/serious that training was if there were people getting just as strong from training at 30-50% as at 75-90% of 1RM.

Now, I’m not sure what I think about the strength results. It’s not that I don’t believe the data (because Stu’s lab does great research; no asterisk on it, as opposed to a few other labs), but it’s not in line with previous research. In general, there’s no difference between high load and low load for hypertrophy, but high loads are better for building strength. One interesting thing in that study is that they had them max every 4 weeks instead of just once at the beginning and once at the end (which is what you generally see), so it may be that as long as you’re still going heavy somewhat frequently, you’re fine. However, I’d still say heavier tends to be better for gaining strength.

That was my hypothesis as well for why strength gains were the same. I believe it was four 1RM testing sessions across the 12 weeks, so that could very well have been enough stimulus to make the gains pretty similar between groups. Particularly if the subjects were more accustomed to a hypertrophy programme and were somewhat novices in strength training.

Thank you great article even if I do not share your conclusions about the importance of training close to failure. How would you explain the similar gains in hypertrophy in volume equated studies ? It seems that as long as the loads are between >60-100%, hypertrophy is the result of work and not effort. However, if you use lighter loads you have to train close to failure and/or do a disproportionate amount of work to eventually obtain the same stimulus.

I also think the “hypertrophy rep range”, 6-12, might have some merit because with these loads you can obtain a great amount of work with a relativery low effort / low nervous fatigue compared to heavier loads. Training heavy (>80%) and/or to failure is very taxing and might lead to strength loss rather than gains or the need for more deload and recovery periods.

[…] Training to Failure, or Just Training to Fail? • Strengtheory lesenswert, wie immer bei der Seite "Y'know I came up with a new game show idea recently. It's called The Old Game. You got three old guys with loaded guns on stage. They look back at there lives, see who they were, what they've accomplished, how close they came to realizing their dreams. The winner is the one who doesn't blow his brains out. He gets a refrigirator." – from Confessions of a Dangerous Mind by Chuck Barris Zitieren […]